On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 08:03:45PM -0400,
Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | The original envelope address is:
> | A B@ARPA
> |
> | It is only encoded as:
> | <"A B"@ARPA>
>
> Rather than arguing about what "is" means, I simply observe (again)
> that for any value of "is" qmail-smtpd wrongly transforms <"A B"@ARPA>
> into <A B@ARPA>, and wrongly behaves differently than qmail-inject.
>
> It's not a question of encoding one thing two different, valid ways.
> It's a question of transforming a valid encoding into an invalid one.
No you are comparing encoded and unencoded values. In some cases
they are the same and some cases they aren't.
In the case you are talking about qmail isn't going from one rfc 821
encoding to a supposedly different encoding. It is just decoding the
address.
The behavior of qmail-inject is just different than sendmail. It isn't
incorrect. Sendmail expects encoded (I think our sendmail expects rfc 822
encodings), while qmail-inject takes unencoded values. Qmail encodes the
addresses it is given, though in common cases the encoded and decoded
strings match.
